The Theological Meaning of Luke’s Account of the
Transfiguration
by
G. K. Pennington
The Theological Meaning of Luke’s
Account of the Transfiguration
The synoptic gospels all record the transfiguration and show
similar information with minor variations in detail. Studies often focus
on comparisons, discussions of redaction, or similar issues.[1]
These studies are important but it is possible to become so involved in the
analysis that the theological purpose is neglected. Allison A. Trites is
correct when he states the need to honor the literary choices made by the
writers of the gospels. “Each gospel writer was a theologian in his own
right, and his editorial arrangement quite naturally reflected his special aims
and objectives.”[2]
Stuart Hall agrees that the variations in Luke’s account “reveal his purposes.”[3]
This study will look for what Luke meant for his recording of the
transfiguration to accomplish in the context of his “orderly account.”[4]
The
sources for Luke’s gospel and his goal.
It is not a surprise that there is evidence of multiple
sources. Luke tells us of his interest in order and accuracy as a part of
the gospel’s introduction. He says that he relied on the “eyewitnesses
and servants of the word.” (Luke. 1:2)[5]
He clearly is drawing from the experience, knowledge and perhaps written works
of others. Some commentators emphasize Luke’s reliance on the gospel of
Mark or the “Q” source.[6]
“Almost all scholars begin with the basic assumption that Mark’s account was
the primary source ...”[7]
The synoptic problem provides us with some difficult questions but it does not
change the basic meaning of Luke’s work.
Luke’s goal was to provide a reasonable base of assurance for
anyone who reads his account of the life of Jesus.[8]
Peter Renju identifies the witnesses and sources as reasonable factors for the
differences in this gospel. Speaking of Luke he says; “He did his
research and arrived at a presentation of Jesus that is unique to his gospel.”[9]
Renju gives a summation for the uniqueness of Luke as either “special sources
... or to his particular understanding of the message and mission of Jesus.”[10]
This is what molds both this gospel and its transfiguration account.
Themes in the gospel of Luke.
The transfiguration is related to some of Luke’s key
themes. Renju views Luke’s presentation of Jesus as that of “a liberator,
[and] a savior.”[11]
In the transfiguration he makes his case for this from the exodus notion of Luke.
9:31. He says; “...the transfiguration in Luke is a metaphor in which
there are references to Jesus’ mission and role, that is, his mission as savior
and liberator.”[12]
Another theme that follows Luke’s stated goal is the issue
“Who is Jesus?” The answer to this question is the base for the security
of the believer and the purpose for this account of his life. Reid’s
conclusion after making the case for a special Lukan source is; “...in its
final form, [Luke’s Gospel] supplies one of the answers to Herod’s question in
9:9, ‘Who is this?’”[13]
Reid expands this relation to Herod’s question by noting nine occasions in Luke
9:10-56 where this question is answered.[14]
While I agree with the conclusion Reid draws, she is
shortsighted in that the question “Who is this?” flows from one end of Luke to
the other. We can observe Luke’s frequent use of the terms “Christ” and
“Son of Man” as part of the answer. We also see the birth narrative, the
announcements at Jesus’ baptism, the transfiguration, and the conclusion of the
gospel, “Then they worshipped him...” Luke 24:52, all addressing “Who is this?”
Another major theme of Luke is the “kingdom of God”.
This is evident in the context of the Transfiguration.[15]
There are other themes in this gospel but these are the most pertinent to our
discussion.
Making Known The Divine Glory.
Trites explains the absence of the transfiguration in John’s
gospel as seeing “the whole of Christ’s life as a revelation of the divine
glory.”[16]
One purpose for all the synoptics including the transfiguration account may be
to move beyond the basic events of the life of Jesus and open up a higher sense
of Christology.
Seeing
this event from Theophilus perspective.
What might Luke’s readers think and feel as they hear his
account of the transfiguration? The story would captivate their minds as
they reflected on parallels from redemptive history.
Would they stagger at the “eight days”[17]
in Luke 9:28 instead of Matthew’s and Mark’s “six days”. If so they would
miss the point that about a week “...after Jesus said this, ...” Luke 9:28
This statement connects the transfiguration to the context of Peter’s
confession that Jesus is the Christ of God, the suffering predictions, and the
kingdom prophecy.[18]
Perhaps they would identify that the transfiguration
occurred in conjunction with a time of prayer. This would have occasioned
their recall of prayer as a theme also found in this gospel being closely
related to major events.[19]
Moses and
Elijah.
Theophilus may have heard stories about the transfiguration
but Luke was adding to his account the purpose for the conversation with the
two men. These were not just any men but two of the prominent people in
Israel’s redemptive history. One was Moses, the figure of such authority
that when he speaks his is the “voice of law.”[20]
“...Moses functions as the symbolic embodiment of Israel’s torah.”[21]
He was the leader of the exodus from Egypt, a savior and deliverer of his
time. Even his death and burial had a traditional mystique.[22]
The other man was Elijah, whose role is debated with some
casting him as only a prophet.[23]
Others see his purpose as being eschatological with other prophets being more
representative of the prophetic line.[24]
“In the inter-testamental period Elijah is remembered not as the quintessential
prophet but rather as the object of a prophetic promise.”[25]
Scripture links Moses and Elijah in the prophecy of Mal.
4:4-5. John Nolland’s summary of options is “...Moses and Elijah
represent, in effect, the sweep of the unfolding of God’s purposes leading on
to the role of Jesus.”[26]
Gause links Elijah’s presence to the eschatological end of Malachi’s prophecy
about him.[27]
The person with knowledge of redemptive history probably
would have recalled the great deeds and struggles of life these two had
experienced.[28]
Some may have drawn the parallel of their seemingly uncompleted work being
carried on by successors. The names of these successors had identical
meanings to that of Jesus, “God or Jehovah is salvation.”[29]
That could have caused readers to think “Who will be the successor to
Jesus?’ An overriding thought must have been, “Where does Jesus stand in
relation to these two great men?”
Discussion of
the Exodus.
Hearing the word “exodus” the readers of Luke would have
thought of the original deliverance under Moses. Baladacci ties Jesus’
death to the “exodus” and refers to it as the “central Lukan concern in the T
[transfiguration]...”[30]
To emphasize the point he says, “...this is in fact a central redactional
concern ...”[31]
Gause takes “exodus” to incorporate “all the redemptive activity tha would take
place in Jerusalem. in Jesus’ last days.”[32]
Clearly, a great event was on the horizon. Jesus was
immersed in what was going to occur, and the climax would be in
Jerusalem. The way this functions in Luke is that from this point forward
Jesus’ movement in the gospel account is persistently, physically, emotionally,
and spiritually toward that end. “...the purpose of His life can be found
in the word used in verse 31, “exodus.”[33]
Wilhelm Michaelis considers the use of exodoj (ecdon)in Luke 9:31 to be a pointed reference
to the end of Jesus’ life and not a focus toward the redemptive act of resurrection.[34]
Only in the eschatological view of what Jesus accomplished
at Jerusalem does the lone Jesus standing on the mountain find his full
meaning. As Trites has said:
Moses could not cure
hardness of heart ... ...and Elijah could not conquer vindictiveness ...
...only in the person and work of Christ did mankind receive God’s final word
for the human predicament....”[35]
Peter’s response.
Gause suggests that because of the disciples’ being “very
sleepy” (Luke 9:32) that the transfiguration was a night event.[36]
What the apostles observed was not natural and soon “they became fully awake” Luke
9:32
Awed by what he observed, even though Luke indicates that
Moses and Elijah had left already, Peter offered to build structures to honor
them.[37]
To Nolland this seems to be an “innocent Christological error: he simply may be
thinking of capturing forever this scene which represents the whole drama of
salvation from Exodus to the eschaton.”[38]
A cloud and a voice.
With the appearance of the cloud Luke’s readers likely would
have started recalling past events. There were over forty references to the
“cloud” in the torah related to “the glory of the Lord”, “Sinai”, or the “tent
of meeting” all indicating God is present.[39]
The picture was almost inescapable. A mountain, a
figure glowing similar to Moses at Sinai, a cloud that by itself invokes fear,
and a voice that recalls the voice from the cloud at Sinai![40]
These are the things of the making of covenants and kingdoms. In
retrospect, Luke will portray this as a life-changing moment for Jesus since
from here He sets out for Jerusalem. This moment is reminiscent of his baptism
that served as a doorway into his ministry.[41]
Theophilus pores over the event because it is webbed into
the whole gospel. It is anchored in the eschatological teaching of
scripture. It flows from Israel’s redemptive history. The voice at
Jesus’ baptism had addressed him and had given him assurance. This time
the voice gave assurance and command to the disciples and all who would read
Luke’s gospel. It puts Jesus’ glorification and authority on the basis
that He is the Son of God.
Jesus alone.
The voice is silent, the cloud gone, Moses and Elijah are
nowhere to be found. Jesus is alone and ready to walk down the mountain
and do what no one else can do. The journey to Jerusalem, toward death,
burial, and resurrection is not unexpected. It has been discussed with
God’s servants experienced in “exodus”.
How does Luke’s transfiguration function
for us?
For us this pericope serves the goal of encouraging and
strengthening our faith in Jesus. It does this as an integrated part of
Luke’s gospel and turns us to the final purpose for his incarnation. It
accents his glory, his authority, and his mission. It ties the roots and
heart of Israel’s history to the culmination of God’s incarnation and atonement
for us. It accents that the cross meant for our justification was planned
and God declared the one on it “mine.”
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
The Analytical
Greek Lexicon, Zondervan: Grand Rapids, 1968.
Baldacci, Richard
P. “The Significance of the Transfiguration Narrative in the Gospel of
Luke: A Redactional Investigation,” 1974 Marquett University, Microfiche.
Black, Allen. An
Outline Of New Testament Introduction, Harding Graduate School of Religion,
(Spring, 1997).
DeVries, Simon J.
“Vision on the Mount: Moses and Elijah and Jesus.” Eastern Great Lakes
Biblical Society Proceedings, 3 (1983):1-25.
Drivers, H. J.
W. “Christ as a Warrior and Merchant,” Studia Partistica 21, ed.
Elizabeth Livingstone (1989): 303-373.
Fitzmyer, Joseph
A. The Gospel According to Luke. The Anchor Bible, ed. William F.
Albright and David N. Freeman, vol. 28 Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981.
Gause, Rufus H. “The
Lukan Transfiguration account, Luke’s Pre-Crucifixion Presentation of the
Exalted Lord in the Glory of the Kingdom of God.” Theses, Emory University,
1975, Microfilm.
Geden, A. S.
“Joshua.” in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. James
Orr 3:1743-1747. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1939.
Glasson, T. Francis.
“The Uniqueness of Christ.” The Evangelical Quarterly 43 no. 1 (January
- March 1971): 25-35.
Hall, Stuart
“Synoptic Transfigurations: Mark 9,2-10 and Partners.” Kings Theological
Review 10 (Autumn 1987): 41-44.
The Holy Bible;
New International Version. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978.
Hutton, Rodney R. “Moses
on the Mount of Transfiguration.” Hebrew Annual Review ed.
Theodore J. Lewis, 99-120. Columbus: Ohio State University, 1994.
McGuckin, John A.
“The Transfiguration of Christ in Scripture and Tradition.” Studies in the
Bible and Early Christianity Vol. 9 Lewiston, NY: The Edwin Mellen Press,
1986.
Moulton, Warren J.
“The Historical Significance of the Transfiguration.” Biblical and Semitic
Studies (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1902.
Murphy-Oconner,
Jerome. “What Really Happened at the Transfiguration.” Bible Review 3
(1987):8-21.
Nolland, John.
“Luke.” In Word Biblical Commentary ed. David A. Hubbard, and Glenn W.
Barker, vol. 35b Dallas: Word, 1993.
Orr, James. “Jesus
Christ.” in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. James Orr
3:1624-1668. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1939.
Pamment, Margaret.
“Moses and Elijah in the Story of the Transfiguration.” The Expositor Times
92 no. 1 (August 1981): 338-339.
Pokorny, Daniel H.
“The Transfiguration of Our Lord Last Sunday after the Epiphany, Luke 9:28-36.”
Concordia Journal 11 (January 1985):17-18.
Reeve, J. J.
“Elisha.” in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. James
Orr 2:934-937 Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1939.
Reid, Barbara.
“Prayer and the Face of the Transfigured Jesus.” The Lord’s Prayer and Other
Prayer Texts From the Greco-Roman Era ed. James H. Charlesworth with Mark
Harding and Mark Kiley. Valley Forge. PA: Trinity Press International, 1994.
__________ “Voices
and Angels: What Were They Talking About at the Transfiguration? A
Redaction-Critical Study of Luke 9:28-36.” Biblical Research 34
(1989):19-31.
Renju, Peter M. “The
Exodus of Jesus (Luke 9:31).” The Bible Translator 46 (April
1995):213-218.
Trites, Allison A.
“The Transfiguration in the Theology of Luke: Some Redactional Links.” The
Glory of Christ in the New Testament, ed. L.D. Hurst and N.T. Wright,
71-82. New York: Oxford, 1987.
____________
“The Transfiguration of Jesus: The Gospel in Microcosm.” The Evangelical
Quarterly 51 no.2 (April-June 1979}: 67-79.
[1]
As an example, Barbara Reid, noting the similarities of sequence in the
synoptics, cites fifteen elements following true to form in all the
accounts. She recognizes the comparable context between accounts,
similarities in language, then starts the case for a separate Lukan
source. Barbara Reid, “Voices and Angels: What Were They Talking About at
the Transfiguration? A Redaction-Critical Study of Luke 9:28-36,” Biblical
Research 34 (1990): 20.